Attorney Wins Animal Law Post Seizure Hearing in Hollywood, CA

It's true, attorney Chan did win a post seizure hearing in Hollywood, CA when the seizure was done improperly.

Very few attorneys have ever accomplished this.  The Seizure Code for animals in California, is so poorly written, poorly updated, and convoluted, that even a seasoned Criminal law Specialist in Roseville had to ask attorney herein for help on the law in a different seizure case...

  The law under the CA Penal Code has been severely cobbled together and changed, year after year after year, and when reading this terribly written code, to be quite frank, it is actually not legal in more than one way. As in "as applied."  The reason for this is due to the statute which calls for a taking by the government, without a hearing.  In other words, it amounts to a forfeiture, like when a person is in possession of illegal contraband/or drugs--everything is forfeited. One cannot have a hearing on items that are actually illegal in the first place to own basically.

We have inside information that the people responsible for the law (an attorney in the Bay Area) had already told animal control that even though the law does not afford a "hearing", he recommended at his seminar on the subject, to give the accused a hearing anyway.  Obviously this means, this attorney knows his law is completely flawed, yet he has done nothing to change that law. That same attorney also appeared in Roseville and told Judge that it was the "Legislature's fault" because they passed the law. We call that-- nothing less than being an outright SCHMUCK. Wait until the law is actually challenged in Federal Court. It will have to be changed because it is obviously illegal.

We don't say that because we think we know everything, but because the law as written is simply illegal, we need a case usually, in order to have standing in Federal Court, to challenge it. There actually is such a case in Sacramento Eastern District on this issue, BUT the case is not premised on challenging the law itself, it is instead focused on other factors that happened in the case, and the moving party does not want to challenge the law for other reasons.

We can give out information on that case if you are interested, just call and ask 530 359 8810 and leave us a message. Very few attorneys are even aware of this case. We may write more about it later in 2020.

For  example of a seizure case in Federal Court, Los Angeles 2018, see
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/05/01/13-57002.pdf

Carolyn J. Chan - Chico, California Lawyer - Justia

https://lawyers.justia.com › lawyer › carolyn-j-chan-1492967

Attorney Chan won rare post seizure hearing in West Hollywood where animals were seized but there was no actual exigency http://www.denverpost.com/aurora/ci_11001153 Attorney was counsel for animal owner, Denver Federal District Court, Aurora likely to drop breed ban if social media keeps pressure on....

Texas Court of Appeals, Anti-SLAPP Dog Case 
https://www.animallaw.info/case/maldonado-v-franklin